I agree, Windows (and the associated hardware) is extrememly inferior to a Mac. The 
Mac OS has much more control over the programs that run in it (as does UNIX), and 
it is only Windows that allows programs to have their own way, and inevitably cause 
the morass of problems for users (and existence of sites like this one).

MS built Windows from a product called QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) via 
DOS and a product that ran on top of DOS (Windows 3.x). It wasn't until Northern 
Telecom disassembled and rebuilt a copy of Windows 3.11 to create the forerunner 
of Windows NT that things changed for the better.

Unfortunately, the numbers that you are talking about are not representative of anything 
that can be quantified in a way that is meaningful. The numbers don't have to be 
100% (as logic would seem to dictate) for the machine to run well; if they are reasonably 
high there is no problem. Post the values back and I'm sure someone will comment 
on them.





On Wednesday, February 6, 2002 at 2:58 am, jazz wrote:
>why is it that apple did not have this problem?  i don't know why i fell for d mswindows 
>media hype & shifted to an inferior os.
>
>going back to apple would be extremely costly.
>
>ain't trying xp yet.  is it really as good as it is claimed?
>
>
>thanx & regards,
>
>jzz

• Reply or follow-up to this message

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum